The 10,000 year old civilization which was more advanced than us

I have read through the thread and found some interesting assumptions made by people here. Skyscrapers and factories? Steel beams and rebar? Who says
that these are required for a civilization to exist? These are artifacts of our Western, post industrial revolution culture. Cultures and
technological civilizations can exist without these things.
The Japanese culture was an example of high tech existing with low tech. While culturally advanced, they were technologically just out of the bronze
age, yet produced swords of alloyed steel that are at a level with modern metallurgy. The Chinese had a advanced culture that was about the same level
as the Japanese. In neither case do you see factories supplying the goods required to support their population base.
Before the Industrial Revolution was dragged around the world, skilled tradesmen worked in guild shops to produce and invent things. The idea of mass
producing a product on an automated production line was repugnant to them, because you couldn't guarantee the quality of the product. We see this
today, with the cheaply produced items that we get.
Our veiw is biased by our 'build it fast' culture. We use steel and concrete because it makes for a quick and easy build. We could use the older and
more enduring methods of stone work, but it takes time and is difficult work.
Plastics are another product of our culture. They were invented to facilitate automated factory production. If you look at the products made of
plastic, they are also availiable in another medium. We survived quite nicely without them until the 1950's.
If you remove our cultural bias, you can easily see a city made of two or three story buildings of a wood and stone construction.
Tradesmen(Tradewomen, Tradespeople?) working in their workshops outside of town would produce the required items. Not having mass production means
that items were made to last a longer period of time and cost more, so you wouldn't have a materialistic society such as ours. An 'outdoors' style
of living wold mean a more physical society that didn't mind some physical labour, so walking or riding a horse wouldn't be unknown. In warmer
climates, most activities take place outside.
Using this as a basis, it would be possible for some high technology to coexist with low technology. Even the sanscript texts state that only the
ruling class could afford the flying machines or ground vehicles. They weren't in widespread usage by the people. Soldiers might get a ride to the
battlefeild, and only if it was far away.
Trade Guilds are notoriously secretive with their methods and skills, hence the phrase 'trade secret'. If you wiped out the tradesmen and guilds,
the item they produced would die with them. Even today, we can't figure out some of the processes used by tradesmen 200 years ago. We can reproduce
most of their work, but usually end up using modern processes to do it. The Industrial Revolution cost us a great deal of trade knowledge.
For example, stain glass windows. We know how to assemble them, but some of the glass from medievel times just can't be reproduced.
Just because a society is technologically advanced doesn't mean alot of toys and garbage left behind. If you look at the prople who live off the
grid, they have some of the most advanced technology around in their posession, but they also leave the smallest ecological footprint. Take them out
and loot the house, and in 100 years you would be hard pressed to locate the site.
Now I'll stop and go back to rubbing sticks together. The wife wants me to build a fire.

The only thing I have found to be advanced from a long time ago are called known as BC-vintage batteries (made by the Parthians, who dominated the
Baghdad region between 250 BC and 224 AD.

They are very simple. Thin sheetcopper was soldered into a cylinder less than four inches long and about an inch in diameter.

You can find at the relieft at the Temple of Hathor at Dendera pictures on the walls of people holding what looks like light bulbs! Called at that
time "Djed" pillars.

Ive spoke with many of my mondain friends who still think Tom Ed. was the guy who sparked it all. I laugh and hand them a book, and ask them to read
it. Titled Technology of the Gods, The incredible Science Of the Ancients. Good read there

Originally posted by Nextstep
There seems to be plenty of evidence suggesting past advanced technology not understood today (Giza Egypt has enough examples to validate this alone),
the only thing that really seems to be absent is the willingness to embrace the possibility (which any good researcher would do until sufficient
evidence proves otherwise).

I agree fully. Here is a good link to show the evidence which supports such a theory. The graph of the tier heights and the ceiling stones of the
kings chamber are very advanced, while also making the project very much harder to complete. The tier heights make this a very durable structure,
which dissipates earthquake waves, the opposite of our brick and stone walls.

Read my posts, ample proof is offered, showing the reason there is little left of the pre 9500 bc civs. It is most clearly laid out in a book I
mention, worth reading if you like c14 dating, lists of evidence, and logical theories, supported by varied sources.

Originally posted by zysin5
The only thing I have found to be advanced from a long time ago are called known as BC-vintage batteries (made by the Parthians, who dominated the
Baghdad region between 250 BC and 224 AD.

They are very simple. Thin sheetcopper was soldered into a cylinder less than four inches long and about an inch in diameter.

You can find at the relieft at the Temple of Hathor at Dendera pictures on the walls of people holding what looks like light bulbs! Called at that
time "Djed" pillars.

I seem to remember this being debunked as a 1920's Ford sparkplug, but I cant find the link again argh.

You might find such books convincing but I have never found one that actually stood up to protracted scrutiny. They make alright science fiction but
lousy science.

The last such one I read was Graham Hancock's "Fingerprints of the Gods" and it followed the same pathway carved by such books as "The Chariot of
the Gods"; long on supposition and short on verifiable fact. But hey, if you like such things more power to you, but don't call them science
because they are not.

Originally posted by grover
You might find such books convincing but I have never found one that actually stood up to protracted scrutiny. They make alright science fiction but
lousy science.
The last such one I read was Graham Hancock's "Fingerprints of the Gods" and it followed the same pathway carved by such books as "The Chariot of
the Gods"; long on supposition and short on verifiable fact. But hey, if you like such things more power to you, but don't call them science
because they are not.

If you are referring to the book I mentioned, then I disagree that it is not science. It is written by a geologist and an archeologist, both with
university degrees in their fields of expertise. I only mention that because many people feel that no one without a diploma or doctorate can
understand scientific method or apply critical thinking skills, which is far from the case. But, had this book been devoid of scientifically gathered
and analyzed physical data supporting their theory, I would not care what the authors education level was. It is abundant with such data, though.
And that, to me, is far more compelling than the letters at the end of their names.

Originally posted by BlackGuardXIII ...and the ceiling stones of the kings chamber are very advanced, while also making the project
very much harder to complete.

I oopsed. In my post, there was reference to the kings chamber. It is wrong. It is from a different webpage, and refers to the floor stones, not
the ceiling stones, as I wrote.
Here is the page with the information I so poorly tried to recall earlier.

The author contends that these stones contain within their dimensions ratios which relate to the planets. The first row showing data about Mercury,
next Venus, then Earth, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. It is beyond me to totally verify this information, so maybe some other member can have a look at
it and tell us what they think.

When you say advance, in what way? I'm sure it would not be every way for we would see it, but I'm sure there can be lost civilians that could have
had major advancements. One of my pet ideas is throughout history there were a few extremely high IQ 220 to 250 range people that made huge advances
and influences on the human race, in more ancient times most of this advance knowledge had been lost long after the super genus died since that great
knowledge was isolated to a local area.

Hello everyone. This is my first post after having come to this site many times in the past, but never done any consistent lurking.

This thread in particular is quite interesting to me as I have a strong yet casual fondness for ancient civilizations.

I have to admit that I skimmed quite a bit of the thread once the more intense debating kicked in. After a couple pages I found myself thinking of a
few points that were only mentioned a few times, though I'd still like to chime in.

As was touched upon, a lot of contributors to this thread are assuming that a technologically advanced civilization requires evidence of its existence
in a form that we are familiar with. Concrete, steel, rebar, glass, radiation, plastics...sure, all of that stuff might be around in 5000 or 10000
years if our civilization wipes itself out with a thorough nuclear cleansing. However, in my opinion, to assume that every other civilization that has
existed should also leave the same exact evidence is narrow-minded.

Consider this for a moment. We live in a time when the vast majority of people are driven by one thing: money. Plastics are used so much these days
because plastic is cheap, practical, durable, and can be fashioned into so many useful forms. Steel/rebar is the same way. These are inventions and
discoveries that were made as a result of our civilizations accumulated knowledge over the centuries. But how can we assume that a civilization like
the Egyptians would have come to the same point in their growth if they had been given more time? What if a civilization existed which wasn't
concerned with personal wealth, but rather they were a people who worked together to further the population as a whole rather than that of the
individual?

Another point I feel work making is that perhaps other civilizations were not so focused on the physical world as we are. Is it not a possibility that
they could have lived in stone structures (which we still see evidence of today), had much, much smaller populations, and focused their energies on
the study of the spiritual and mental realms? I think that our civilization has only begun to scratch the surface of what is possible with regard to
the human mind. I also believe that perhaps certain people (i.e. governments who prefer to keep certain knowledge secret) possess knowledge, and maybe
even abilities, which us common folk are not aware of. Taking that a bit further, perhaps there could have been some sort of massive catastrophe or
conflict involving mental, spiritual, or some other unknown warfare. Who knows?

Is it possible that perhaps there have been remnants of these lost civilizations scattered around the world but they were collected by powerful
governments and organizations in order to hide the existence of those civilizations from modern knowledge? Who knows what is kept within underground
bunkers and other top secret facilities around the world. We assume that places like Area 51 are used for research for new technologies. But what if
they are also used to hide secrets of the past?

And speaking of underground facilities, what if these ancient peoples found it more to their liking to dwell underground instead of building up like
we do? I know it's a stretch, but can such a possibility be easily denied?

I think it's very important to keep a VERY open mind about this whole broad topic of lost advanced civilizations. Maybe we're looking in the wrong
places by assuming we'll find evidence of their existence out in the open where we dwell today. There could be junk of theirs littering the deepest
parts of the oceans or buried deep underground, or perhaps they left no evidence that we would consider tell-tale signs of advancement at all. Or
perhaps there never was any such civilizations at all (we can't rule that out either, as many have pointed out). For all we know, the ice ages, with
the destructive power of huge glaciers, wiped away the evidence.

You recount some of the most common excuses as to why no evidence for these ‘advanced’ civilizations are not found.

Even hunter-gather societies leave an archaeological record. It would be very difficult to not leave any habitation levels, burials, terrain
modification, trash or artifacts of any kind. They never lost a tool, a ship or even the odd piece of worked stone, no artwork, nothing. It would
appear that if they existed they had no stone tools, no pottery, no burials and no habitations. This is known as the ‘Ground sheet’ excuse or the
perfect ecologists myth. Although possible it is not probable, we will probably find regional civilizations pre-dating the present known ones and
have actually already done so.

No ‘very open mind’ is not necessary just normal curiosity which is fed with evidence. Until you have evidence your into blind speculation.
Speculation is fine but doesn’t make up for the lack of evidence.

The evil conspiracy excuse. One of my favorites! This predisposes that all governments think alike and at some point in the past they all imposed the
same restrictions world wide. My question is this. How did the governments, in say the 1880s determine what to suppress? Why wasn’t the knowledge of
the Minoans suppressed? Oddly, there are around 40,000+ professional Archaeologists in the world and none of them seem to be aware of this…LOL. It
is somewhat odd to think why a professor of Archaeology in China, Burma or India would care about upsetting some Western notion of what the history of
the world should be…….

If all humans disappeared today, an archaeologist, with todays level of knowledge, say 5 million years in the future would be able to detect that
there had been an advanced civilization on earth.

The modifications and artifacts left in the sedimenary layers would lay out the story for him/her/it.

I know that my points were probably common reasonings. I admit that I'm not an expert on this subject, and perhaps that is why I may come across as
naive. I don't think it's fair to call them excuses though.

You know it is possible that the junk from old civilizations is still laying around and has yet to be found. We (modern man) are still finding whole
cities buried under the soil. Wasn't there some ancient town just uncovered in Mexico during some sort of construction or something? Who knows what
else is buried beneath our feet?

We may certainly find something in the futre. Those who deal with Archaeology conspiracy call them by that name on occasion.

Yes, a number of new finds have shown civilization beginning to flourish up to 9,000 years ago. We will probably find more items in the following
centuries. I suspect however that no 'advanced' civilization will be found. If it existed we should have found something by now. At best we may
find, and probable will, more regional and local civilizations.

For more knowledge on alternative history I would recommend you check occasionally at the Hall of Matt website which specializes in this subject.

Resource depletion was always a major problem for early civilizations, the flood plains of rivers provided a good way to avoid this as the river
replenished the soil.

If you look at the middle east you can still see the effects today of these civilizations over use of agriculture and domestication of animals. Much
of mesopotamia's soil became overly salty from using river water that had a relatively high salt content and little rain to wash away the
accumulation.

To effectively destroy a city with a H-bomb you would burst it (like for Hiroshima and Nagasaki) in the air above. H-Bombs although more powerful
would have been targeted in the same way. Militarily you want to cause the maximum amount of damage to the largest area. The best way to do that is an
airburst which will create the type of damage that you see in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (it is magnified also by the fact that most Japanese cities of
the time were made of wood and burned easily).

Ground or near ground bursts would melt and burn as you stated but would be a very ineffectual way to use such weapons.

Such ground bursts would also leave a distinct trace, as did practice ones set off by the present nuke powers.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.